普遍银行权力和创造流动性

IF 8.6 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Allen N. Berger, Omrane Guedhami, Destan Kirimhan, Xinming Li, Daxuan Zhao
{"title":"普遍银行权力和创造流动性","authors":"Allen N. Berger, Omrane Guedhami, Destan Kirimhan, Xinming Li, Daxuan Zhao","doi":"10.1057/s41267-024-00699-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Universal banking powers are permissions for a nation’s banks to provide financial services beyond “plain vanilla” banking activities. Some nations restrict banking activities to only services such as loans and deposits, while others permit commercial banks to also engage in investment banking, insurance underwriting, and/or real estate investment activities. Despite the research and policy importance of this issue, the literature essentially neglects how these powers affect the primary role of banks in creating liquidity for society. We formulate two competing hypotheses as to whether more universal banking powers increase versus decrease domestic bank liquidity creation based on theories of risk absorption, relationship banking, and scope economies/diseconomies. We test which hypothesis empirically dominates using data from 85 nations over 15 years. The data strongly support the hypothesis that universal powers boost domestic bank liquidity creation. These findings are robust to addressing endogeneity, controlling for bank regulations, macroeconomic conditions, and institutional variables, and conducting subsample analyses. We also test for international arbitrage – whether the foreign subsidiaries of banks from more restrictive countries create more liquidity in host countries with fewer restrictions – and find support for this arbitrage. Collectively, these results provide important research and policy implications.</p>","PeriodicalId":48453,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Business Studies","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Universal banking powers and liquidity creation\",\"authors\":\"Allen N. Berger, Omrane Guedhami, Destan Kirimhan, Xinming Li, Daxuan Zhao\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41267-024-00699-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Universal banking powers are permissions for a nation’s banks to provide financial services beyond “plain vanilla” banking activities. Some nations restrict banking activities to only services such as loans and deposits, while others permit commercial banks to also engage in investment banking, insurance underwriting, and/or real estate investment activities. Despite the research and policy importance of this issue, the literature essentially neglects how these powers affect the primary role of banks in creating liquidity for society. We formulate two competing hypotheses as to whether more universal banking powers increase versus decrease domestic bank liquidity creation based on theories of risk absorption, relationship banking, and scope economies/diseconomies. We test which hypothesis empirically dominates using data from 85 nations over 15 years. The data strongly support the hypothesis that universal powers boost domestic bank liquidity creation. These findings are robust to addressing endogeneity, controlling for bank regulations, macroeconomic conditions, and institutional variables, and conducting subsample analyses. We also test for international arbitrage – whether the foreign subsidiaries of banks from more restrictive countries create more liquidity in host countries with fewer restrictions – and find support for this arbitrage. Collectively, these results provide important research and policy implications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48453,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Business Studies\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Business Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00699-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Business Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-024-00699-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

普遍银行权是一个国家的银行在 "普通 "银行活动之外提供金融服务的权限。一些国家将银行活动仅限于贷款和存款等服务,而另一些国家则允许商业银行同时从事投资银行、保险承销和/或房地产投资活动。尽管这一问题在研究和政策上都很重要,但文献基本上忽略了这些权力如何影响银行为社会创造流动性的主要作用。我们根据风险吸收、关系银行和范围经济/不经济理论,提出了两个相互竞争的假设,即更多的普遍银行权力会增加还是会减少国内银行创造流动性的能力。我们利用 85 个国家 15 年来的数据,对哪种假设占主导地位进行了实证检验。数据有力地支持了普遍权力促进国内银行流动性创造的假设。这些发现在解决内生性问题、控制银行监管、宏观经济条件和制度变量以及进行子样本分析时都是稳健的。我们还检验了国际套利--来自限制较多国家的银行的国外子公司是否在限制较少的东道国创造了更多流动性--并发现这种套利得到了支持。总之,这些结果具有重要的研究和政策意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Universal banking powers and liquidity creation

Universal banking powers are permissions for a nation’s banks to provide financial services beyond “plain vanilla” banking activities. Some nations restrict banking activities to only services such as loans and deposits, while others permit commercial banks to also engage in investment banking, insurance underwriting, and/or real estate investment activities. Despite the research and policy importance of this issue, the literature essentially neglects how these powers affect the primary role of banks in creating liquidity for society. We formulate two competing hypotheses as to whether more universal banking powers increase versus decrease domestic bank liquidity creation based on theories of risk absorption, relationship banking, and scope economies/diseconomies. We test which hypothesis empirically dominates using data from 85 nations over 15 years. The data strongly support the hypothesis that universal powers boost domestic bank liquidity creation. These findings are robust to addressing endogeneity, controlling for bank regulations, macroeconomic conditions, and institutional variables, and conducting subsample analyses. We also test for international arbitrage – whether the foreign subsidiaries of banks from more restrictive countries create more liquidity in host countries with fewer restrictions – and find support for this arbitrage. Collectively, these results provide important research and policy implications.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.20
自引率
10.30%
发文量
84
期刊介绍: The Selection Committee for the JIBS Decade Award is pleased to announce that the 2023 award will be presented to Anthony Goerzen, Christian Geisler Asmussen, and Bo Bernhard Nielsen for their article titled "Global cities and multinational enterprise location strategy," published in JIBS in 2013 (volume 44, issue 5, pages 427-450). The prestigious JIBS Decade Award, sponsored by Palgrave Macmillan, recognizes the most influential paper published in the Journal of International Business Studies from a decade earlier. The award will be presented at the annual AIB conference. To be eligible for the JIBS Decade Award, an article must be one of the top five most cited papers published in JIBS for the respective year. The Selection Committee for this year included Kaz Asakawa, Jeremy Clegg, Catherine Welch, and Rosalie L. Tung, serving as the Committee Chair and JIBS Editor-in-Chief, all from distinguished universities around the world.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信